Anna wrote:Do you think she'll be able to change her character though? Do you think she truly understands why savaging other people is considered so reprehensible or does she merely see it as a behaviour that's an obstacle to her getting what she wants so she'll tone it down for that reason?

The latter.

I think she is basically amoral, which I suspect is a character trait more prevalent than we might think, and she simply acquires the moral framework of the environment in which she finds herself. When competing in the Apprentice morals served almost no purpose and were a potential obstacle to her success, in front of the YBF audience having morals is most definitely advantageous and so she acquired them. But in my previous assertions I do believe that her experience on the programme may change her approach: she might for the first time see the advantages of having some core robust morals and the advantages they deliver in most circumstances in the modern world. She was forced to confront her amoral self on the telly and could see herself as others see her and from an objective point of view.

I suspect a salutary lesson has been learnt, and old habits derived fighting in competitive environments may be abandoned or at least curtailed. I still wouldn't like to be between her and a sales commission without protective clothing but the fact she can emulate the behaviour of a pleasant human being, as she showed on YBF, one suspects she can go the whole hog and become that person, or at least close to it.

I did briefly think that Makosi of BB was capable of evolving a decent human being despite her truly foul immoral character once became aware of her character faults through public censure, but I quickly decided my optimism was ill-founded and that her brief dalliances with decency were cyncial acts of pragmatism, and that she would always be odious. I think my optimism for Paloma may be more justified, she did seem to be self-aware and self-critical on YBF, now whether this was a pragmatic act or a re-evaluation of her behaviour is difficult to tell in someone of her intelligence and adaptability.

One or two people on DS thought she'd been coached for her appearance on 'You're Fired'.

It's an interesting question as to how someone basically amoral might acquire morals. As Giz says, she lacks empathy. Being truly moral would entail having a sound appreciation of the rights of others and an understanding of how aggressive and destructive behaviour affects other people. Empathy means that you can feel what the other person is feeling - or is likely to feel if you behave destructively. You don't see people merely as objects that are to be removed or destroyed if they get in your way.

Is she likely to acquire this simply because it's been pointed out to her that her behaviour got her fired or will she simply think of her behaviour as a series of actions on her part that led to one consequence whereas acting differently would benefit her more and advance her further?

Flossie wrote:
I think her behaviour in the pitch to the dress makers was appalling, she showed almost no interest in the products and expressed little enthusiasm, so she inevitiably suffered. I didn't agree with Marcus Brigstoke that the other team were over effusive, the products seemed good and the team were entitled to express their genuine appreciation.

Yes she's very target oriented and human relations seem to be cut out of the equation in the interests of her reaching her target. That's why I'm wondering if someone so unaware of others as people, but seeing them in terms of their usefulness (or not) to her, can gain a genuine appreciation of what's going on with others and how to respond to them. It's not just a case of keeping quiet more, or routinely encouraging all the members of her team (which she did tonight) because she's aware it's good business practice and she can be judged on it. It would involve having a genuine emotional reaction to people and products and being authentic in communicating that. She seems to view things in more formulaic terms, exhibiting a certain behaviour or eliminating another because of what it will gain her.

The question is whether she has a latent appreciation of other people as people and deserving of consideration and rights but has suppressed it in favour of achieving personal goals because she has not the time or energy to do both or she really is just a cyncial pragmatist and only interested in personal success and will only consider others if that is to her benefit, which she perceive it to be if that conincides with good and productive business practise.

Yes, although the way you describe it, an "appreciation of other people as people and deserving of consideration and rights" sounds like a mental concept, unattached to any feeling, and therefore capable of being discarded or not at will, according to its usefulness in any given situation.

I'd argue that morals are underlaid by conviction and therefore with a truly moral person, morals aren't suppressed according to circumstance. I suspect therefore, that she's someone who for one reason or another hasn't developed a firm set of morals about the rights of others and has always acted primarily to her own advantage. Someone who was truly empathic couldn't bring themselves to savage other people the way she did. She went way over the top in the boardroom in her attempts to knock out the other candidates. None of the other candidates, despite their many faults, have made personal attacks on the same scale.

Flossie wrote:
I think her behaviour in the pitch to the dress makers was appalling, she showed almost no interest in the products and expressed little enthusiasm, so she inevitiably suffered. I didn't agree with Marcus Brigstoke that the other team were over effusive, the products seemed good and the team were entitled to express their genuine appreciation.

Yes she's very target oriented and human relations seem to be cut out of the equation in the interests of her reaching her target. That's why I'm wondering if someone so unaware of others as people, but seeing them in terms of their usefulness (or not) to her, can gain a genuine appreciation of what's going on with others and how to respond to them. It's not just a case of keeping quiet more, or routinely encouraging all the members of her team (which she did tonight) because she's aware it's good business practice and she can be judged on it. It would involve having a genuine emotional reaction to people and products and being authentic in communicating that. She seems to view things in more formulaic terms, exhibiting a certain behaviour or eliminating another because of what it will gain her.

The question is whether she has a latent appreciation of other people as people and deserving of consideration and rights but has suppressed it in favour of achieving personal goals because she has not the time or energy to do both or she really is just a cyncial pragmatist and only interested in personal success and will only consider others if that is to her benefit, which she perceive it to be if that conincides with good and productive business practise.

Yes, although the way you describe it, an "appreciation of other people as people and deserving of consideration and rights" sounds like a mental concept, unattached to any feeling, and therefore capable of being discarded or not at will, according to its usefulness in any given situation.

I'd argue that morals are underlaid by conviction and therefore with a truly moral person, morals aren't suppressed according to circumstance. I suspect therefore, that she's someone who for one reason or another hasn't developed a firm set of morals about the rights of others and has always acted primarily to her own advantage. Someone who was truly empathic couldn't bring themselves to savage other people the way she did. She went way over the top in the boardroom in her attempts to knock out the other candidates. None of the other candidates, despite their many faults, have made personal attacks on the same scale.

I would agree, but I do believe that it is possible for her to acquire a moral framework, this might be naive but I think simply because acquiring a moral framework is useful and advantageous for most people that she will acquire one. What she probably needs is a dominant boyfriend to sort her out